New York Court of Appeals Clarifies Important Questions about Tip-sharing Statute

On June 26, 2013, New York's highest court for the first time weighed in and ruled on what types of employees are qualified to participate in tip-splitting or tip-pooling arrangements under the New York Labor Law, as well as the extent to which an employer can exclude eligible employees from participating in the tip pool. In a decision that will provide greater clarity to the restaurant and hospitality industries, the court held that tip-sharing should be limited to employees who ordinarily are engaged in personal customer service, and should exclude employees who have meaningful supervisory authority over their subordinates. The court also held that even if certain employees are otherwise eligible to participate in a tip pool, an employer can nonetheless choose to exclude them (within reason), as the law does not create an affirmative right to receive tip distributions.

Background

The Court of Appeals' decision was a consolidated opinion concerning two separate and seemingly contradictory lawsuits, Barenboim, et al. v. Starbucks Corp. and Winans, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., both of which challenged Starbucks' tip-sharing policy and the way it applied to various categories of employees. All Starbucks stores employ four categories of employees: (1) baristas, who take and deliver orders, clean tables, stock product, and work on a part-time, hourly basis; (2) shift supervisors, who primarily perform the same duties and work on the same terms as baristas but have some supervisory authority; (3) assistant store managers, who perform the same duties as baristas and shift supervisors but possess greater supervisory authority, participate in personnel decisions, and work on a full-time, salaried basis; and (4) store managers, who are responsible for the overall operation of the store and make ultimate personnel decisions.

Starbucks' tip policy provides that the tips collected each week are distributed among baristas and shift supervisors only, in proportion to the hours worked by each employee. Based on this policy, Barenboim, a former barista, filed a class action lawsuit in federal court claiming that the inclusion of shift supervisors in the distribution violated the New York Labor Law, which prohibits an employer's "agents" from demanding or accepting any part of tips received by employees. According to Barenboim, the fact that the shift supervisors performed any supervisory duties rendered them ineligible for tips, and therefore, only baristas should partake in the distribution.

Shortly after Barenboim filed her lawsuit, Winans, a former assistant store manager, filed suit in the same court, making the opposite argument: Whereas Barenboim argued that the tip policy was over-inclusive, Winans argued that it was under-inclusive and also must apply to assistant store managers, who did not qualify as "agents" under the Labor Law and therefore were eligible to receive tips. According to Winans, assistant store managers were not agents because they did not have "full" managerial authority, such as the ability to hire and fire subordinates.

In Barenboim's case, the Southern District of New York sided with Starbucks and held that shift supervisors did not possess the type of broad authority that disqualified them from collecting tips under the Labor Law. In Winans' case, the court again sided with Starbucks, holding that while there were issues of fact regarding whether assistant store managers were eligible to receive tips, Starbucks was not compelled to include them in the tip pool even assuming that they were eligible. Barenboim and Winans appealed.

Recognizing that both cases presented novel questions of state law, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York State Court of Appeals. First, it asked the court to explain the parameters of employee eligibility for participation in a tip-sharing arrangement. Second, it asked the court if an employer could exclude an otherwise-eligible employee from receiving tips from the employer's tip pool.

Question 1: Which Employees Are Eligible To Share in a Tip Pool?

In interpreting the provision of the Labor Law that outlines employee eligibility to share in an employer-mandated tip pool, the court first noted that because the New York State Department of Labor ("DOL") was charged with enforcing the Labor Law, the court should afford deference to that agency's interpretation of the statute.

Accordingly, it looked for guidance in a Hospitality Industry Wage Order ("DOL Wage Order") that the DOL had promulgated in 2011, which stated that tip-pool eligibility should be limited to employees such as waiters and busboys, who perform personal service to patrons as a principal part of their duties and not on an occasional or incidental basis. In addition, the DOL consistently has maintained that employees such as "captains" remain eligible to participate in a tip pool even where they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility.

Relying on the DOL Wage Order, the court concluded that an employee who possesses "meaningful authority" or significant control over subordinates is not eligible to receive tips under the Labor Law. The court then explained that its "meaningful authority" standard "might include" the ability to discipline subordinates, assist in performance evaluations, participate in the hiring or firing process, or give input in the creation of employee work schedules, thereby directly influencing the number and timing of hours worked and overall compensation. The court rejected the position advocated by Barenboim that any supervisory authority would automatically disqualify an employee from participating in a tip pool, and also rejected the position advocated by Winans that only employees with "final authority" or the ability to hire and fire should be excluded.

Having established the standard for eligibility, the court then affirmed that even though the DOL Wage Order that guided its decision was issued after Barenboim and Winans had initiated their lawsuits, the standard should still apply retroactively to their cases. The court did not specifically decide whether supervisors or assistant store managers are eligible to participate in tip pools, and instead directed the federal courts to apply its principles to the facts of the respective cases.

Question 2: Must Employers Include All Eligible Employees in Their Tip Pools?

As to the second question certified by the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals again agreed with the District Court and held that even if a particular employee is eligible to participate in a tip pool, the Labor Law does not create an affirmative right to tips. As such, employers are not required to include all eligible employees in their tip-sharing arrangements.

But despite this reading of the law, the court also left open the possibility of an "outer limit" to an employer's ability to exclude certain classifications of employees from a tip pool; for example, if an employer sought to give all distributions from a tip-splitting arrangement to a single employee, or only to the highest-ranking employees. Still, as it held that Starbucks had not exceeded this limit in excluding assistant store managers, the court did not expand further on where this "outer limit" lies.

Implications

The Court of Appeals' decision makes clear that in assessing employees' eligibility to participate in tip pools, employers must look beyond job titles and consider the duties that their employees actually perform. Moreover, employers should pay careful attention to the degree of supervisory authority exercised by their employees, including the ability to issue discipline or influence work hours and compensation. But while the court set forth principles that will inform these determinations, it did not apply them to the facts of the case, leaving such analysis to the federal courts in which the cases were filed. Therefore, employers should continue to monitor these and other cases for guidance on how courts will apply the "meaningful authority" standard.

Employers also should take note that while they may mandate tip-sharing arrangements that do not include all tip-eligible employees, certain types of exclusions still may run afoul of the law. Given the lack of clarity on this point, employers may wish to consult with counsel when establishing their tip-sharing policies.

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.